As a regular reader here, I know that mental illness is not a foreign topic to these boards. In fact, it comes up and is addressed with some frequency. I have encountered a great deal of diversity of thought among my feminist-identified friends when it comes to how to talk about mental illness. I have a manic disorder myself, and am a part of a community group where people with other illnesses are present as well. A few years ago, I made the decision that prescription medication was not working for me. It made me sick to my stomach. It caused such side effects that I would rather deal with the disease than the cure. My doctor tried multiple varieties, multiple dosages. Nothing helped. I eventually made the decision to begin alternative treatments, including nutrition therapy, holistic counseling, biofeedback, cognitive therapy, ect. These treatments work for me and help me manage my moods in an effective way. But the reactions I have received, even from people who profess to be feminist or progressive, have not always been good. And that begs the question... aren't patients' rights still relevant here?
I understand that the idea of an un-medicated mentally ill person is scary. I do. The news media doesn't help the situation by flooding the news stream with stories about psychotic outbursts and the like. But I still find it shocking how few people I have met and divulged the information to feel free to openly criticize or disrespect the choice that some make to not use medication as a mental treatment.
I did not leap into non-pharmaceutical treatment blindly. I researched and read, interviewed and researched some more, and prepared myself for what would be involved. When I chose alternative treatment, I did it because my quality of life at the time was so poor that I knew I could not live this way anymore. But to hear some describe it, I am deeply irresponsible, because I do not take pills. I am placing myself, my family, my schoolmates, my community (ect.) at risk because I could snap and do something terrible one day. I have been told I set a poor example. That I am stupid to disregard medical science. That I have a RESPONSIBILITY to take the drugs. And I'm pretty tired of it.
I am NOT suggesting at all that no person with a mental illness should take drugs. NO WAY. I know people whose lives have been saved by the drugs and who have their lives and families back because of it. And good for them. But I am among those for whom the drugs offered no help. So, I found it elsewhere.
A lot (rightfully) gets made of the rights of pregnant and birthing women to shape their own plans and receive the care they want. A lot if getting made now of patients' rights and the right to the treatment the sick want to receive, without consideration of cost. Patient rights are a noble cause, and one worth pursuing. But I still have the sinking feeling that the mentally ill are still a group that is it acceptable to make demands of, to police our choices and treatments, and to not ask what we would prefer to do.
If anyone else has experience with this issue or thoughts, please let me know.
I have not had many meaningful conversations on this topic!
0 TrackBacks
Listed below are links to blogs that reference this entry: The Right to Choose for the Mentally Ill.
TrackBack URL for this entry: http://www.feministing.com/cgi-bin/movabletype/mt-tb.fcgi/16428
I honestly believe it's because we are still considered less than compared to other people. I have several mental illnesses, some sensory issues and dyspraxia.
We aren't considered whole people capable of making informed choices. I take meds, because that's what works for me, but I'm also in the process of task training a service dog. People seem to think they know what the best way for me to manage my illnesses are, and they simply don't.
Thanks for writing about this. I myself do not have an MI but I work in a psychology research lab and one of the main things we discuss and take action in is patient rights. I agree--a person with a mental illness does not often get to make his or her own decisions regarding treatment, and it's definitely an issue that needs to be discussed more.
If a different means of treating your disorder works, then I'm glad it works for you. I, too, have bipolar disorder and take three separate medications to manage the symptoms. Each has its own set of side effects, but the benefit of being on medication far supersedes whatever discomfort I might feel. I've dealt with this condition for fifteen years and by now it's such a part of my daily existence that it's more an afterthought than anything else. It, as I'm sure you understand, is a frequently laborious and exhausting process, but I learned that if I wanted to be functional, I needed to devote that degree of time and effort to stay well.
Regarding the issue you have raised, there is still a lot of misinformation and fear of mental illness, though fortunately my own generation is much less squeamish about the topic. Still, people just don't understand what goes into treatment, and that there isn't a one-size-fits-all approach. Therapy, plus medication, plus exercise, plus watching what I eat is the regimen that keeps me feeling my best. There are also varieties of therapy like traditional psychotherapy, Cognitive-Behavioral Therapy (as you've cited), and Dialectical Behavioral Therapy in a group setting and often it takes trial and error to determine which of these is the best fit.
Everyone I have known who has bipolar has a slightly different medication regimen at a slightly different proportion of each medication. This just emphasizes how poorly understood brain function is and how inexact a science is psychiatry.
If people realized just how complex and difficult to treat was mental illness, they might understand that summarily making snap judgments and proposing easy solutions isn't really feasible.
I understand that the idea of an un-medicated mentally ill person is scary. I do. The news media doesn't help the situation by flooding the news stream with stories about psychotic outbursts and the like.
Especially since people with mental health conditions are the victims of violent crime at twice the rate of the "general population". But the media doesn't really report that.
I have multiple psychiatric issues myself, but I have also seen the devastating effects of untreated mental illness: I have a dear friend who has developed eating disorders and drug addictions, as well as severe depression, as a result of the family effects of her mother's untreated schizophrenia. I believe patients should be able to choose their treatment if they fully understand the effects of their illness, but only if those choices are not resulting in them abusing others or causing irrevocable damage to themselves.
But when a person's illness prevents them from understanding their need for treatment, and their lack of treatment is causing danger to themselves or others, they should be given treatment at least until they can make a genuinely informed choice about whether to continue treatment further. In general people should be able to choose their own healthcare, but we have responsibilities to people besides ourselves when we make our self-care choices, and people with severe mental illness are not always competent to choose their own care.
As for the OP's situation, I am generally leery of the idea of a bipolar person being off meds because I know that meds are usually the only way to treat bipolar, but if she is genuinely in better health off the meds than on them, more power to her.
But see, you're making the most common mistake that people make when talking about mental illness - UNMEDICATED does not mean UNTREATED. I have a very large treatment regime, one that demands a huge amount of my time. I am not a proponent of people with MI being untreated (if you want to see information about those views, look up a movement called Mad Pride).
You are still assuming that meds are the single best treatment option, all the time, and that people who do not take meds are not in control of their conditions or disorders. And that's the type of thinking that makes it harder for people with MIs to choose their own treatments, free of societal pressures and expectations. I'm not trying to be sarcastic or hostile - I am just trying to explain the distinctions, and why their important.
Well...I'm aware that while medication is the gold standard of treatment for a lot of mental illnesses, it doesn't work for everybody. I really respect that you've realistically figured out what does and doesn't work for you, and that you've put together a treatment regimen that does help you. My initial reaction to "I'm bipolar and I'm off meds" is skepticism that it's a good idea, but I'm willing to change my mind when the person has good reasons for being off the meds and has their disorder under control in other ways.
Well...I'm aware that while medication is the gold standard of treatment for a lot of mental illnesses, it doesn't work for everybody. I really respect that you've realistically figured out what does and doesn't work for you, and that you've put together a treatment regimen that does help you. My initial reaction to "I'm bipolar and I'm off meds" is skepticism that it's a good idea, but I'm willing to change my mind when the person has good reasons for being off the meds and has their disorder under control in other ways, which seems to be true for you.
"when their lack of treatment is causing danger to themselves or others, they should be given treatment at least until they can make a genuinely informed choice about whether to continue treatment further."
this statement is, on its face, true. but who decided what a 'genuinely informed' choice is? and who decides whether someone is a danger to themselves or others?
further, who decides whether it is the lack of treatment that is causing the danger at all?
i think this approach is well-intentioned, but then again, nearly all mental health professionals i know of are well-intentioned. the problem here is in how such things get executed.
i know my case was unusual: i was probably given a drug at a party, and not just any drug, a research chemical which the hospital wouldn't have known to test for. i was seventeen, so i had no rights, but i was a sophomore at an honors college, so i was pretty aware of what was happening to me. my parents decided i was suicidal when i didn't want to share my feelings with them -- and they had me institutionalized.
but still, my brain chemistry had much more damage done to it by the 'treatments' i received -- for schizophrenia, bipolar disorder, "brief psychotic disorder," et cetera -- which i later learned i didn't have. what i had was PTSD brought on by sexual violence at a young age. more importantly, i had the misfortune of attending a psychedelic-happy college at a young age.
most of the time the psychiatrists are in the pockets of the pharmaceutical companies, which i'm surprised no one has brought up, as it is a decidedly feminist issue. they hire former cheerleaders to sexily sell these drugs to your mostly male doctors, who also receive spa and vacation kickbacks. do you think this is safe?
another case in point: while debating an essay i had written on sex trafficking, the man who disagreed with me, who also knew my history with mental illness, implied that my essay about sex trafficking was lengthy because i was having a manic episode. really?
i can recite cliches about van gogh, nietzsche, or whomever you want, but it's obvious that some of the great actions in our society, the ones that really break the mold and challenge convention, will always run the risk of being criminalized and pathologized. i think there needs to be a thorough overhaul of the medical-pharmaceutical-psychiatric-psychoanalytic industrial complex before it will be able to step back and allow those actions, and yes, we'll have to acknowledge that it is not always the safest route, but that some risk will be necessary if we want to be just, not safe.
for the record, while i'm at it, my health regiment now does include two very light psychiatric meds, but none of the heavy-hitters, and -- importantly -- none of the ones that psychiatrists trying to force their "concern" on me had decided i needed.
one more point i'd like to make:
i think that revolutionizing how we think about mental illness goes hand-in-hand with women's rights. there appears to be a distinct form of mental illness which even now is exacerbated by sexual repression. this form was naturalized as a "women's disease," but in reality, i think, was a symptom of the patriarchy.
women who had it were basically taken to a doctor and massaged to the point of orgasm, at which point they were considered "cured." i'm not making this up.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Female_hysteria
too often, a residue of this embarassment to the medical community persists. women consistently get their legitimate complaints written off because it is known that women in our patriarchal society are at a greater risk for depression and anxiety disorders than men. surprise?
'female hysteria' dates back to an ancient greek belief that a woman's womb was actually capable of detaching from her cervix and wandering happily around the female body -- thus enter manly medical science to put that lady back where she belongs. bottom line: historically, women are not presumed to have control over their own bodies, and one of most insidious frontiers in which we can learn about this is in medical science. i know personally that doctors second-guess my own beliefs about my health more often than not, even though i'm consistently proven right.
Am I right to assume that you live in the U.S.? I live in Europe and also have an MI. Over the years, the medical discourse here has seemed to evolve and doctors have started to realize that medication doesn't change the way you deal with your illness and the things like cognitive behavioral therapy does help patients in that area.
I'm sure you are aware that some people experiencing mania don't take their medication because their mania makes them think they are doing really well but clearly that is not the case with you. I think you make a great case for the concept that we need to take patients with MIs seriously and they can and should be involved in shaping their own treatment. Thank you for this great post and bringing up this issue!
Thank you for this post, Drahill. Regarding the media coverage of psychotic outbursts: it's interesting how many people (eg. Eric Harris) were on medications at the time of the incident. When a doctor diagnoses someone with a chemical imbalance they might as well be telling them that a giant octopus has taken residence in their head. There is no medical basis for these so called diagnoses. The one thing that is certain about chemical imbalance is that people on medications are suffering from them and the side effects frequently compromise their lives and worsen their condition.
I applaud your decision to seek holistic forms of treatment. It takes a lot of inner strength to trust your own judgements and resist those of others after being put through the system for a manic disorder.
"There is no medical basis for these so called diagnoses."
Can you clarify what you mean by this?
"When a doctor diagnoses someone with a chemical imbalance they might as well be telling them that a giant octopus has taken residence in their head. There is no medical basis for these so called diagnoses."
Are you saying there is no scientific basis for the biological explanations given for diseases like schizophrenia and bipolar disorder? Are you saying that medications like lithium only make people's conditions worse?
If that is what you're saying (and please correct me if I misunderstood)I completely disagree. while many psychiatric medications have serious side-effects they also help a lot of people and denying that is wrong and dangerous.
I think what erinmerie might be referring to is the fact that diagnoses are actually voted on. Like it or not, psychiatry is a subjective science. It is to no one's advantage to pretend otherwise. It wasn't so long ago that homosexuality was considered a mental illness.
Voted on by the APA.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b30iwhEw9ho
(Note that the video is a little sensationalistic, but the psychiatrist interviews speak for themselves.)
ps -- erinmerle, i like your paintings. :-) i paint as well.
They may be voted on, but some of them have psychical evidence. Have you seen the work done on brain scans of people with schizophrenia, bipolar disorder and ADHD? Our brains are in fact different in their functioning.
i'm sure there are differences in people's brains. what these differences mean is a different issue. my concern is that, as monkey_doc below quite even-handedly suggested, there is no biological test that will diagnose them --
i would go further and suggest that a variety in types of brain functioning should not at the outset be considered a 'disease.' as i've said, people with 'mental illnesses' have made some of the most significant contributions to our culture yet, and it does them a disservice to say that their unusual mental states only hurt, and never helped.
I guess you and I see the label of mental illness in a very different way, then. To me it does NOT imply an disqualification from making great contributions to society. That idea reminds me of people who say things like, "but you got into university and you're smart and nice and fun, so you can't be mentally ill!" Of course I can. I can be on the debate team AND have an anxiety disorder. I can organize an event AND have ADHD. I can tell good jokes AND be depressed. Just because I can do those things doesn't mean I'm not struggling with these problems. To me, the term mental illness means that I have problems, which are not my fault, that need to be addressed (with medication or without, as I see fit), and in the meantime I'm going to go ahead and live my life and contribute to society.
Thank you. My mental illness in fact has some benefits some times.
um, we really don't disagree on this point, at all. i have no problem with people who find the concept of a mental illness helpful using it?
i simply do not think i, personally, benefit from seeing myself as part of a special class of people on the basis of my emotional problems. i prefer to think about the specific causes for my specific problems -- the situations out of which they arose, and yes, the genetic and cultural influences i inherited from my parents -- as complexes of problems but not as "diseases."
the only reason i hesitate at the term 'mental illness' is that it all too often IS stigmatizing for people, and causes them to feel shame at needing the help of their community or the help of medication. if that is not how the phrase works for you, if it is helpful, i bear you absolutely no grudge! i just ask that you extend me the same courtesy.
No, it's totally cool if you don't identify with the same label as me - sorry if my tone suggested otherwise. I've embraced it for a number of reasons, particularly that I find it's a good counter to the idea that mental illness is a personal fault. As for the stigma, I strongly agree that it's terrible. Personally I prefer to adopt the label and challenge the stigma surrounding it, rather than challenge the label itself, but I can understand why you or anyone else would choose to reject the term.
@Tara- actually, most (not all but most) MI diagnoses are guesses at best. SSRIs, for example, work on the a hypothesis that cannot be directly tested or measured in the body. treating with them is more like cooking than anything else - salt to taste. one of the reasons it is not recommended for severe depression. lithium sometimes does make people worse, and they're really not sure exactly what it does to your brain - i once got a letter grade down on a paper for saying there was no conclusive reason for the side effect hypothyroidism in lithium patients because the teacher did not believe that scientists didn't know. even though i quoted them saying, in effect, "gosh, i dunno." there is evidence that not just children but adults become suicidal when put on SSRIs, because of them. as i firm believer in the value of my meds (lithium for dysthymia), i am still perfectly willing to state a) that meds are an imperfect science, and psychiatry is extremely subjective and b) that exercise has a more immediate and thorough stabilizing effect on my mood than medication.
These diagnoses are hardly guesses, unless you believe that almost all medical diagnoses are guesses. The diagnoses are based on symptoms that are either reported or observed by a physician or psychologist interacting with the patient. Similarly, when you have a cold and go to the doctor, you would usually get a diagnosis of a cold virus without any test to actually detect the presence of that virus. For another example, Alzheimer's disease has no definitive biological test that can currently be applied on an individual basis, except after a patient's death. The diagnosis is made by careful observation and patient history - the same behavioral methods that are applied in psychiatry. And just as in all fields of medicine, it is more likely than not the symptoms that are reported that are being treated, not the diagnosis itself.
And SSRI medications, btw, have known mechanisms of action in the brain that explain both the side effects and that therapeutic effects. While these are not tested in individual patients yet, the mechanisms of action are well established in treating depression in group studies.
What I think you allude to in your post is the fact that most patients who have chronic mental illnesses try a large variety of medications and other therapies before finding ones that work for them. This is because individual patients have different physiology and medications affect body systems to greater or lesser effect depending on those individual differences. Medical science is not yet good enough to custom tailor a pharmacological approach to an individual psychiatry patient based on things like genetic testing (it is coming soon, however, and already exists in some cancer specialties). Therefore, choosing a medication strategy that will work best for an individual does involve a certain amount of educated guesswork.
You are closer to the truth about lithium salts, for which the mechanism of action is far less clear.
It isn't clear if you're implying that there is no biological basis for some of these mental illnesses or whether you are simply saying that there is no current biological way to diagnose them. If the former, you are wrong. If the latter, you are right. For an individual patient who has a history of mania and depression, there is no biologically based test to determine a diagnosis of bipolar disorder.
The diagnosis of bipolar disorder, like most in psychiatry, is made from behavioral observation and patient history. But it wouldn't be true to infer from that that there is no observable basis for the illness in biology - thousands of peer reviewed studies support it for bipolar disorder. It is in fact the most heritable (i.e., genetic) form of mental illness in psychiatry. In group studies, very replicable changes in brain structure and function are observed.
I am a neuroscientist who studies childhood forms of bipolar disorder, schizophrenia and autism, and I can say that the scientific evidence for a biological basis for these illnesses is well supported by the scientific literature. That is not to say that each doesn't have significant interrelationships with the environment.
All that said, I completely support this person's right to choose to medicate or not medicate. If non-pharmacological methods work for her, then that's wonderful. No treatment strategy, with or without medication, is effective 100% of the time with 100% of the people trying them. In bipolar disorder, for example, it is well known in the psychiatry community that the depressive phase of the illness is more resistant to medications such as SSRIs than is the depression in unipolar depression.
I'm been working with bipolar for fifteen years, I've tried the old antidepressants, the newer ones (SSRI's) old anti-psychotics, and newer anti-psychotics, and some electrocunvuslive therapy. I've spent a good year of my life in some time of institution (voluntary or not). There is no magic pill that will work all the time. And if someone finds that they can control their symptoms within boundaries that the patient sets, that is very good. Debating which is best for another person is rude and annoying (exception may be doctors, but not in all situations). I've found a good level, but it took a while.
Your point is well taken. It seems like your choices are working well for you, which is great. I wonder how a reader can take this information and apply it to their interactions with loved ones with mental illnesses? How do you know when to be supportive of a choice and when to push for the person to get treatment or a different kind of treatment? Mental illness can be devastating to the loved ones of the patient, and it can be hard to know how to help. If a person insists that their choice to go off meds is the right one, but in your opinion they aren't doing well, at what point do you stop respecting their choice and intervene?
yeah-this sort of touches on my issue. I had a friend in high school who literally ran out into traffic a couple of times when she wasn't on her meds. She hated them, and I can respect that. but is it really better to let her run into busy streets? I can't think so.
this is not to say that I think meds are the best idea for everyone, or that I don't think there are alternative therapies that might work better for a given person, or that I think meds should replace other therapy. I don't. but I'm not comfortable saying "no forcing treatment ever" because I'd have missed my friend if she got hit and killed. Is that selfish? I suppose. though if you asked her later, she would also agree that she didn't want to get hit. How does that fit into this-when a person's opinion may change?
I really like the cognitive model, it just makes sense to me. Mental Illness isn't just a "broken brain," there are often chemical and cognitive processes that develop as a result of trauma and conditioning. I don't have anything against medication, per se, but it always seemed like a cop-out to just put someone on Prozac and expect them to un-learn the coping mechanisms and behaviors that caused their brain chemistry to get out of whack in the first place.
Really, the acid test should be whether or not a person is able to function: If a person can function and use non-medical therapies, then there's no problem... they've found something that works. If a person is on wellbutrin or zoloft and they still can't hold a job, get out of bed in the morning, or keep friends, then the meds obviously ain't working and something else needs to be tried.
The tragedy is that there are plenty of mental illnesses where the person suffering is not necessarily in the best position to judge if they're "functioning" or not. Trying to tell a friend who suffers from paranoid schizophrenia and is calling you up mid-delusion at 2am that they need to get back on their meds is not the easiest thing in the world, and often doesn't work.
I agree with everything you write here, drahill.
I've also seen the flipside - having feminists or commenters on feminist sites explain condescendingly that I or my partner are just dupes of the pharmaceutical industry because we take antidepressants, or that they read in a magazine depression is overdiagnosed because people today can't handle the normal range of human emotion. As if they have ANY idea what they're talking about. It's so frustrating, and it's the other side of the exact coin that you describe.
This is interesting. I did a lot of research on the forced medicating of foster children for a job I had. A lot of them are labeled with ADD or "Objective Defiant Disorder" (ODD) and medicated. ODD is a ridiculous "disorder" anyway. Schools love to label "difficult" children with this. One of the diagnostic criteria that the APA uses is that the child "often argues with adults." Of course kids coming from abusive families, bad schools, etc. are going to argue with adults and act up for attention. But the solution in many places is to give these kids medications. And this isn't light medication. This is medication that can have permanent side effects even after the medication is stopped. In fact, even a lot of today's common anti-depressant and anti-anxiety meds can occasionally (although it is rare) have permanent effects.
If people really need medication for something, then they should have it. But I think as a society we are still a little scared of mentally ill people and we also like quick fixes for everything. It is not ok to assume that all people with a mental illness are dangerous.
It's also not ok to label everything a serious mental disorder to get a quick fix. I was diagnosed with Depression when I went to see a dr. for insomnia. I know the two are sometimes related, so I went along with him. However, after 3 months of miserable side effects that he kept insisting would "go away soon," and other indicators that he wasn't a great doctor, I took myself off the anti-depressants. A close friend of mine was super nervous about this, really worried about me. But I am fine. I never needed them at all. And now I'm dealing with serious consequences of that "diagnosis" because I work in a field that requires a license, and the licensing board is concerned that I have a "major mental illness" on my record. (They apparently also have a bias against the "mentally ill").
ODD= Opositional defiant disorder, not objective. (my partner worked with abused kids and kids with mental health issues- the amount and type of medications some of them on were mind boggling)
My uncle was bipolar and borderline schizophrenic, and struggled with this issue for his entire life. He hated the way the meds made him feel, but his decision making was seriously impaired when he wasn't on medication, which led to all sorts of problems (he would go to bars and start fights because he thought he could hear people thinking bad things about him, for instance).
For him, things got better as he got older, largely because the meds improved. And I have friends whose daughters have severe impairments that were largely caused by experimental psychiatric drugs they were on when they were kids (for autism, among other things).
So my experience tells me that this is a tough as hell issue, and not one I feel comfortable making blanket statements about, except to say that meds alone is very rarely effective.
I hate my meds, but I hate some of the feelings and experiences I have without them worse. (Others I sort of miss though, is it weird to say that?) My diagnosis is Schizo Affective Disorder and Depression.
Do I feel I have a "responsibility" to continue my meds and treatment? Well I can say this--I know there are certain consequences to being unmedicated. Losing friends, losing jobs, being susceptible to abusive personalities are just some of those things I've experienced. I see working on myself and my illness as a trade off towards having the kind of life I prefer.
I think what's interesting about these discussions is that they still kind of stick within the framework that it's fully the responsibility of the person with the mental illness to address their own mental health.
I've received a whole bunch of advice and resources from doctors and counselors and while that's been heaps useful in finding a med balance that works for me and giving me some strategies to deal with stuff there's never been any kind of resources and support to help me address the behaviours of people and spaces around me.
There's never really a recognition that the way our society is structured and the way we're taught to behave is still really fucked up for a lot of peeps with mental illnesses. So I'd like to see, in addition to support for people's abilities to make choices on what treatments work for them, more resources available in actually giving people strategies to deal with people around them, outside of just CBTing away triggers and shit.
So I agree with you that the rights of patients to make their own decisions is really important, but I think we need to go WAY further in transforming care for people with mental illnesses.
I wrote this to liberals and feminists on my blog...sent it to a whole bunch of feminist blogs, all of whom ignored me.
An Open Letter to Liberals and Feminists
http://bipolarblast.wordpress.com/2009/04/14/an-open-letter-to-liberals-and-feminists/
The comments are even better than what I wrote...
hope someone finds it useful this time around...I sent it to you guys too.
glad you're all getting around to talking about this stuff.
cheers.
You know what's REALLY fucking fun?
Being Manic Depressive, pregnant, unmedicated for the sake of the fetuses, and then having that pregnancy start going to shit.
I was absolutely denied adequate prenatal care because I am Manic Depressive.
When my blood pressure started going up, I was told I needed to relax. When I expressed concerns about high blood pressure leading to complications like preeclampsia and preterm labor, they told me I should go see my shrink.
I should go see my SHRINK because I had Pregnancy Induced Hypertension. Yes. They said this.
Imagine my surprise when I went into preterm labor. ...Oh, and of course they then refused to prescribe medication for the preterm labor, because I just needed to relax.
I transferred to a competant practice, one that didn't pat my hand and scold me for being worried, and that is the only reason I delivered living children.
I can see that "refusing meds" is not the same thing as "refusing treatment," and like an earlier poster said, if that's working, more power to you. But what I don't see is concern for those who are victimized by others' mental illness, which is to my mind where that scorn comes from. I have a hard time with someone who knows they hurt people if they're unmedicated, but still refuses medication. I have seen and felt that pain firsthand. I have two different family members who have been diagnosed and refuse treatment - because like "bipolar blast," they don't even think they have an illness, and WE are all the ones with the problem.
So my point is: I really don't think the demands come from a place of discrimination. I don't even think they come from pure media hype. There is a lot of gray between "normal behavior" and "shooting spree." That gray can cause people a lot of pain. That, to me, is where the skepticism, and even the coercion, comes from - a lot of us have seen, with our own eyes, the destruction that a mentally ill person can wreak on her family and friends. And it sucks. Way more than being sick to your stomach.
I have to say I agree with a lot of this.
If medication works for some people with a mental illness, great. If a sun lamp and certain supplements work for others, great. If yet another group is helped by talk therapy, that's all good too.
What is critical though is finding and sticking with a method of treatment that is effective. Untreated - and inadequately treated - mental illness is pretty awful for all involved.
A friend of the family's daughter is bipolar with psychotic breaks, and her first major episode involved going missing for a few days. She's in treatment now and doing better, but... it's still a day-to-day struggle.
You (read: everyone) should read the book (if you haven't already) by peter breggin called "your drug may be your problem." As a mental health professional (I'm a clinical MSW) I see a lot of people who get bullied by psychiatrists or even family doctors into taking a lot of drugs that may be doing as much harm as they do good. And a lot of clients don't feel like they have the right to question what their doctor tells them to take. I'm glad you have the wherewithal to take charge of your mental health treatment.
You (read: everyone) should read the book (if you haven't already) by peter breggin called "your drug may be your problem." As a mental health professional (I'm a clinical MSW) I see a lot of people who get bullied by psychiatrists or even family doctors into taking a lot of drugs that may be doing as much harm as they do good. And a lot of clients don't feel like they have the right to question what their doctor tells them to take. I'm glad you have the wherewithal to take charge of your mental health treatment.
Eh, I've been on both sides. Celexa given to me as a teen caused me to attempt suicide, but when I was off drugs I was still cutting. Did Celexa make it worse? Yes, that's why it's no longer approved for teens. But other meds made it better. Patients (good lord, I HATE when therapists call me their "client," they are providing healthcare, not legal advice, and they should stop acting like it's "empowering" me somehow, all it does is make me feel that they wouldn't care a whit if they weren't paid) should 100% mention problems with their meds, and switch doctors if their concerns are dismissed, but they should never assume that just because one med didn't work, others won't.
I hate being called a patient by my mental health providers. Calling me a patient makes me feel like their experiment or something. Client implies (to me) that they are working WITH me instead of working ON me.
Somewhat of a side note, I'm studying to be a Speech-Language Pathologist and it weirds me out when my professors refer to those we help as patients, I much prefer client when referring to those I treat.
Those are some really interesting points I never considered. "Client" rather than "patient" really does seem to frame the relationship very differently. My knee-jerk reaction was that referring to myself as a "client" takes away the feeling that I am being treated for a genuine illness, but I think that's based on my own limited connotations with the two terms.
Mental illness and pharmaceuticals are a very difficult subject. I was diagnosed with adult Attention Deficit Disorder about 8 years ago, when I dropped out of graduate school. I was offered stimulant meds, but after doing a lot of research, I could not justify taking amphetamines on an ongoing basis for a problem that isn't even a problem in most environments.
Bear in mind that all of our mental illness diagnoses are based on the DSM-IV, the current version of the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental disorders, published by the American Psychological Ass'n. The previous version, the DSM-III, included 'diseases' like homosexuality and women's hysteria. The DSM-V, due out in a couple of years, will include important mental illnesses like Restless Leg Syndrome, with appropriate pharmaceutical treatment options. My point is that the DSM is just a construct of humans, who are motivated by bias and profit, as well as good intentions. Do your own research and make your own decisions about what you put in your body. And bear in mind that prescription drugs kill about 6 times as many people as illegal drugs, so be careful about what you put in your body - even if a doctor tells you to.
Yeah, but I think the OP is talking about the obvious mental disorders-- mania, bipolar, schizophrenia, OCD-- that are clearly deviations from normal functioning no matter what your society or role. The DSM is flawed, of course, because psychiatry is a new discipline and poorly understood, but certain disorders, including the one described by the OP, are very clearly mental disorders and unquestionably require some form of treatment for the individual to function in society.
And considering that there were only about 2,000 more deaths than suicides in the year 2000, and that includes ALL prescription drugs, I think the chances that you're more likely to die from a psychiatric medication than the disease it intends to cure to be pretty slim.
Another reason someone might go off meds is because they feel unsafe with their health care providers. I wonder if this is a feminist issue too? I was once hospitalized for a mental illness - I never got a clear diagnosis, or, more aptly, I received several contradictory diagnoses - and the treatment I received was itself traumatizing. I was put on and taken off several medications within a 6 week period so none ever had time to take effect and my body didn't handle it well. I was placed in a care regime by one health care professional and then told by another that I didn't belong there. I was in a group care situation of all women patients led by a male doctor who made creepy comments about body dismorphia. My symptoms were consistently mis-recorded to fit expected patterns. (I was asked about my shopping habits. My answer was to crack a joke about my impoverished student budget. I later found out that the nurse recorded shopping sprees as a symptom even though I am notoriously miserly.) I have tried to handle my own mental illness with nutrition, exercise, etc, but it's hard; I just don't feel safe going back. It felt like a hostile environment to me, as a women and it felt like being in the system meant giving up any right to control or know my own body.
This issue is tricky and I am coming from a very biased point of view.
My mother has a mental illness and she refuses to seek help for it. Help meaning therapy and/or medication. Her decision has, in fact, negatively affected many people's lives. I know every situation is different and in my case my mother doesnt even acknowledge her illness and you have, however, I do caution that your decision not to medicate may change your relationships with friends and loved ones. Sometimes rightfully so but others not so much.
However, I do not support forcing anyone to do anything. Its your decision whether to medicate or not and since you are treating yourself and as you say it has helped then I think thats fine.
This issue is very complicated and has no clear right or wrong answers. All decisions made will have both negative and positive consequences. Its just up to you to decide what is worth sacrificing.
I've known many people with mental disorders, various degrees of addiction or mental illness. I completely agree that people who are considered mentally ill should have the choice to decide which treatment is best for them and also for alternative treatments or natural methods for improving conditions to be told to them, unless they are a danger to themselves or others. I think the resistance is that for anyone who is a family member of a mentally ill person, we have been told that going off meds is a bad sign, that they are the only thing keeping a person sane. However, I have found that with almost every mentally ill person I have known that the mental illness wasn't even really being controlled by the drug very well. Maybe a reduction in episodes but never a complete cure. Never a normal life (for the people I've know that are extremely mentally ill) there was always some sort of regression. I honestly believe it is because these drugs inhibit reactions rather then fix was is broken.
However if these conditions can be treated as an actual illness of the body, not just the mind, maybe we could start finding true cures and treatments that were effective. I know I've been able to treat my own anxiety and depression by taking minerals. It sounds too good to be true, but it is working.
This is sort of like the issue that was described in the book, "The Looney-Bin Trip" by Kate Millet. She goes off her bipolar meds to see if she can control her moods without the use of lithium. It was semi-sad in that she was forcibly hospitalized on multiple accounts, including in a non-American country. I know its a biased account but it still demonstrates the fine line between personal accountability and finding independance when you have a mental illness. After a hard depression hit she went back on the meds.
I haven't commented here before, but your post really resonated with me.
I have type 2 bipolar disorder - mostly severe depression, but hypomania manifests as a mixed state (depression + mania -> suicidal) so it's a great danger to me, not to mention terrifying. I've had this illness since I was a young child, but I wasn't "diagnosed" (although I knew what it was) until I was over 25 and finally sought help because it was ruining my life untreated.
However - seeking help did not mean getting better. Not for over three years, and a whole slew of different doctors, some awful and finally a good one. I went through even more medications: I tried nearly 10 before I finally found one that worked. In the meantime, I suffered from often severe side effects without any benefit from the medications. And as my psychiatrist (who is awesome) put it: if only we were advanced enough where we could do some kind of genetic test and immediately realize, "you have a zyprexa bipolar" or "you have a seroquel bipolar" (as is my case). It would be great if we could do this without the trial-and-error. The point for me is that socially-accepted, authoritative medicine is, half the time, stabbing in the dark just as much as any other method of treatment. It is not the only answer just because there's a socially-sanctioned MD in charge.
Here's what I would like to know: if I never found a medication that helped me, would going "untreated" be irresponsible? What is our definition of "treatment" anyway? It certainly sounds from your post that you are taking the most responsible and effective treatment route for yourself. Alternative therapy and medication are just two ways in which to treat an illness. If one works and the other doesn't, choosing the method that works is, in my opinion, always the responsible course of action.
Even though I did find that medication, incidentally, it still doesn't prevent all mood problems. It reduces them. To pretend otherwise, that medication keeps one from "snapping" (what a frustrating term), is ridiculous.
After seeing a particularly manipulative social worker for a short time, I gave up going entirely and tapered off my medications (which were not working anyway) on my own. Every piece of advice out there says no, do this under the guidance of your doctor. By all standards I would be considered horribly irresponsible and having no regard for my health. But in the face of having to "work with" a doctor that I did not trust and who did not respect me, this was the only path I felt I could take. This was the only way I could deal effectively with my circumstances. It was the most responsible thing I could do for my own mental well-being.
If alternative treatments are the best way in which you can care for yourself and be at your most healthy, there is no way anyone should consider that irresponsible or dangerous to others. Close-enough treatment is better than not-working-but-socially-approved treatment.
I wonder if a lot of the calls for "compliance" and being "responsible" by taking medication as prescribed by an authority figure are more about control over others rather than genuine concern for the individual manifestations of mental illness.
I haven't commented here before, but your post really resonated with me.
I have type 2 bipolar disorder - mostly severe depression, but hypomania manifests as a mixed state (depression + mania -> suicidal) so it's a great danger to me, not to mention terrifying. I've had this illness since I was a young child, but I wasn't "diagnosed" (although I knew what it was) until I was over 25 and finally sought help because it was ruining my life untreated.
However - seeking help did not mean getting better. Not for over three years, and a whole slew of different doctors, some awful and finally a good one. I went through even more medications: I tried nearly 10 before I finally found one that worked. In the meantime, I suffered from often severe side effects without any benefit from the medications. And as my psychiatrist (who is awesome) put it: if only we were advanced enough where we could do some kind of genetic test and immediately realize, "you have a zyprexa bipolar" or "you have a seroquel bipolar" (as is my case). It would be great if we could do this without the trial-and-error. The point for me is that socially-accepted, authoritative medicine is, half the time, stabbing in the dark just as much as any other method of treatment. It is not the only answer just because there's a socially-sanctioned MD in charge.
Here's what I would like to know: if I never found a medication that helped me, would going "untreated" be irresponsible? What is our definition of "treatment" anyway? It certainly sounds from your post that you are taking the most responsible and effective treatment route for yourself. Alternative therapy and medication are just two ways in which to treat an illness. If one works and the other doesn't, choosing the method that works is, in my opinion, always the responsible course of action.
Even though I did find that medication, incidentally, it still doesn't prevent all mood problems. It reduces them. To pretend otherwise, that medication keeps one from "snapping" (what a frustrating term), is ridiculous.
After seeing a particularly manipulative social worker for a short time, I gave up going entirely and tapered off my medications (which were not working anyway) on my own. Every piece of advice out there says no, do this under the guidance of your doctor. By all standards I would be considered horribly irresponsible and having no regard for my health. But in the face of having to "work with" a doctor that I did not trust and who did not respect me, this was the only path I felt I could take. This was the only way I could deal effectively with my circumstances. It was the most responsible thing I could do for my own mental well-being.
If alternative treatments are the best way in which you can care for yourself and be at your most healthy, there is no way anyone should consider that irresponsible or dangerous to others. Close-enough treatment is better than not-working-but-socially-approved treatment.
I wonder if a lot of the calls for "compliance" and being "responsible" by taking medication as prescribed by an authority figure are more about control over others rather than genuine concern for the individual manifestations of mental illness.
Thanks everyone for your comments - a few things I have had running through my head:
1.) A lot has been said about the fear that an unmedicated person with MI would be at risk of harming others. The fear is legitimate - absolutely. However, the fear is predicated on the belief that overall, MI creates a disposition towards violence. And statistically, the mentally ill are, as a whole, no more violent than the general population. As was pointed out upthread, we're far more likely to be victims of violence then the perpatrators. Of course, if the fear of violence is well-founded and supported by evidence (past behavior, statements, ect.) then I certainly understand having safeguards in place for those situations. However, the general fear that an unmedicated person is a ticking time bomb just waiting to injure you is really unfounded - but the media generally still likes to promulgate that image.
A lot has also been said about considering the impact that no treatment/no meds have on the loved ones, family, housemates of a person with an MI. And yes, I will admit readily, it's hard to see a loved one suffering or pursuing a treatment that you may not believe in. However, would you say that a woman with a husband and small children who has cancer and opts not to pursue chemo is being irresponsible? Maybe, and that's your opinion to form. However, I can't see anyone here advocating for shaming her, telling her that she owes to it others to accept the treatment, advocate a system that allows her to be forced into the treatment, ect. But that happens to people with MIs all the time.
Part of patients' rights and autonomy is the right to take risks, as long as you do not physically endanger others. I don't expect most people to understand my choices pertaining to my illness or view my choices as right. However, I do expect that my rights as a patient to make informated decisions about my treatment will be respected, as long as I am not a danger to others. And I think that's where the gray area right now.
And yes, I will admit readily, it's hard to see a loved one suffering or pursuing a treatment that you may not believe in. However, would you say that a woman with a husband and small children who has cancer and opts not to pursue chemo is being irresponsible?
Ah, yes, but remember: people fight cancer, whereas we suffer from MI. So a person who chooses not to seek or to cease treatment for cancer is being "brave" and practicing "acceptance," whereas a person with MI who do the same is being an irrational masochist and obviously can't be trusted with anyone's safety. Obviously.
Okay, but drahill: I'm not just talking about, to use your cancer example, your own health. And I'm also not just talking about violence. I'm talking about abuse, emotional abuse, theft, deception... the many other myriad ways in which bipolar mania (or other mental illnesses) can badly hurt other people.
If someone has cancer and refuses chemo, then yes, she is arguably hurting her children by killing herself, but ultimately she is only hurting herself. If someone is bipolar (or something) and refuses treatment, there are about a thousand things she can do to her family and friends, over a period of years and years, that cause a lot more, outwardly-rippling damage. And again, I'm not getting this from the media, I'm getting this from real life.
The distorted media image of mentally ill people being violent, and the real life problem of the pain mentally ill people can inflict on others, are two different things. If your illness does not make you violent, but it does make you (for example, not you personally!), let's say, a self-absorbed drama queen who is constantly belittling and manipulating others... or a deceptive thief that no one ever knows when to believe... then where would you draw the line? Don't those "others" at some point have a right to a happy life?
Maybe I'm just too broadly, and too biased by my own experiences. But in these experiences, I certainly do think those people are reprehensible for refusing medication... and unaware of, or unconcerned with, the consequences of that decision.
I'm really sorry you've had the difficult personal experiences you've obviously had... although I do have a question.
If you think that these people are mentally unfit to the point that they cannot be held responsible for their behavior, why do you think they should be held responsible for their choice not to take medication? If they can't choose whether or not to be a thief or a drama queen or something very basic like that, it seems like they probably can't choose to be particularly responsible in dealing with their own problems, either.
Psychiatric drugs are really serious things. They don't always help. I would say they quite often don't help. And their side effects can be unspeakable. I hope that you have some experience taking these drugs yourself before you suggest that other people be considered morally reprehensible for not taking them.
And also realize that medication, again, isn't even guaranteed to "cure" someone, at all. They may very well get worse, especially if they are being forced to take medication without their consent.
The loss of personal freedom isn't good for anyone's mental health.
Just so you know where I'm coming from, I've recently come to terms with the fact that sexual abuse I experienced very early in life, and the PTSD that resulted from it, caused me to be unnecessarily jealous and mistrustful in relationships to the point where I think I was emotionally abusive. I am taking medication now, and that's helping significantly, but what is most important is what it enables me to do -- which is to think through memories and fears that were too horrifying to even think about before (I recovered some repressed memories recently, actually, in which I was almost killed, things that were confirmed by my mother but I had just never spoken to her about). This is allowing me to take personal responsibility for having done something wrong.
The difference is that I don't explain my behavior as an illness which can be cured with medication. I explain it as a sort of illness which impaired my freedom, which can only be resolved when I have recovered that sense of agency and personal responsibility. Then you can either forgive me or not for what I did before I took that responsibility, but it's no longer explainable as "just" a mental illness (don't get me wrong, psychological disorder still plays a part).
I hope that maybe this was helpful to read...
Oh, but I DO think these people should be held responsible for their behavior and choices. That's why I think it sucks that they either refuse medication, or refuse to believe that they have an illness.
It's kind of a double-edged sword, huh? Either you're not responsible for your behavior because you have a mental illness, and therefore recognize that you need treatment in order to stop hurting others; OR, you ARE responsible for your behavior and you don't have an illness, and you just don't CARE what you do to others, which just makes you (not YOU you, heheh) an asshole. Or a sociopath.
My specific examples, and I can think of FOUR, are all people who a) behave horribly toward their families and friends and cause all kinds of havoc and pain, ranging from annoying to destructive; b) have been diagnosed, repeatedly, with an illness and have shown remarkable improvement when they HAVE taken medication or undergone treatment; AND c) have stopped taking said medication because they don't like the way it makes them feeeeeeeel, and never mind how the rest of us feel about them when they're off of it, because really, they don't have an illness and doctors suck and it's all a big conspiracy with the drug companies, we are all ganging up against them, or whatever.
Their diganoses did not come from some sort of subjective, patriarchal opinion about "normal behavior;" it arose from their ACTUAL behavior, over periods of years, and their inability/unwillingness to grasp what it was doing to those around them.
You speak of a loss of personal freedom. It makes me think of Spock's "the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few, or the one." One mentally ill person's personal freedom... compared to the freedom of, say, her children who live in constant terror of setting her off.
Do I think they should be forced to take medication? It's a tough call. I think they should be forced to stop hurting other people; I think they should never be around children; etc. Does society have to wait until they commit an actual crime so that they can be imprisoned? I don't know where the line is, but to say the "choice" lies entirely with the patient is overly simplistic, to me.
I find it amazing the way this has come up on feministing when I am writing an essay about this very thing.
What constitutes a particular mental diagnosis is continually contested and subjective, culturally constructed framing of behaviour and what is deemed 'appropiate' and 'inappropiate'. For instance, consider previous 'mental illnesses' such as nymphomania (ohmigod, a women who wants to have sex!), masturbatory melancholia (oh no! women having sex by themselves) and homosexuality (oh no! men having sex with men) and the stigma that has previously been attached to what is now considered healthy behaviour. Considering that in Australia, most psychiatrist are older, white men (approx 75% are male) and many recieve income from drug companies, it is important to keep asking 'which interest groups exercise power?' and 'which groups are excluded from exercising power and what implications does this have?'. It is important to recognise especially for women, the way in which psychaitry has been used to socially control, silence and oppress vulnerable groups (especially when they exhibit 'deviant' sexualities).
Biomedical discourse has become particularly influencial which is unfortunate because it obscures other important social and psychological understandings of mental illness, and because of the ways in which the biomedical discourse tends to perpetuate stereotypes of the 'innately emotional, irrational' woman. Previously reproduction was thought to be so influencial on mental health that women's clitoris and ovaries were removed. It seems to be conflated again when diagnoses such as post-partum depression, and PMS are again advocated for DSM inclusion on a biological basis despite several reports finding no biological basis for these so-called disorders. I'm not saying people aren't more likely to be depressed after giving birth (in fact I consider it surprising given the lack of dignity and autonomy afforded to women during childbirth and the trauma this can result in, plus the lack of sleep and stress related to caring for a newborn, that more women aren't depressed after childbirth). What I am saying is that women are more than their biology, that mental illnesses are not objectively decided categories, and that mental health problems have their basis in a range of biological, social and psychological factors and that mental health professionals need to empower women and their decisions instead of patronising, controlling and silencing us.
For instance when considering the high rates of diagnosed depression in women, do we continue to consider the high rates of trauma many women continue to experience, simply due to their status as women? Do we consider the way in which diagnostic terms and aetiological explanations (bring on the mother-blaming!) have been shown to contain gender bias and to be seen as feminine? Do we consider the socialisation of our diagnosing professionals and the women experiencing mental illness who have been consistently shown from childhood that women are 'emotional', 'dependent', 'weak' and at the mercy of their hormones? Do we consider that if the illness has it's roots in social factors, the best way of healing it, may be utilising social methods (of which there is a strong evidence basis for)?
Or do we listen to the loudest voice in mental health, the voice of the older male psychaitrists protecting their domain, and the drug companies, who scream for medication, rather than the female voices of the mental health nurses, the social workers, the psychologists, the occupational therapists, the consumers and the carers? Wow, is mental health a feminist issue!!!
I believe more attention should be placed on teaching the parents and teachers effective child discipline techniques. A child behavior modification program can go a long way in teaching these simple principles which in turn will be helping the difficult children.
I was diagnosed with ADHD (I know it is not as serious as some mentioned above, but it is diagnosed too quickly) when I was 8 or 9 years old, and was heavily medicated for that and anxiety since before I was 10 years of age. Not only did the medication aggravate my OCDs (I have a hair pulling disorder), it made me unable to keep down food. Anytime a teacher reported to my mother that grades were slipping, my dosage was increased almost two-fold.
10 years later, I am off of the medication. My ADHD has gone away because I can take classes in college that challenge me properly, such as programming courses. My anxiety disorder that caused my hair pulling, is mostly gone. I have a problem spot here or there. Instead of the short fuzz I used to have on my head, my hair has grown out to my shoulders.
Many mental disorders are treated as a risk to society. My brother has Asperger's and Social Anxiety Disorder. For years, teachers were SCARED of him because he wasn't sociable and thought he was going to shoot the class just because he didn't have a big group of friends.
I think with the whole medication part it needs to be watched thoroughly case by case. Just because the medication has "good" benefits doesn't mean they outweigh the risks or side effects. It works for some and fails for others. Unfortunately, many doctors and therapists like a one size fits all scenario and disregard anything else. I also wonder at times such as with my case, if medications doesn't aggravate the disorder it is trying to cure. I know some depression medications make people more likely to commit suicide or have suicidal thoughts. Several others I have talked to about ADD and ADHD, have stated the medication make it harder to focus, often times hyper-focusing.
this post seemed pretty relevant to my life - i have schizo-affective disorder and have been hospitalized pretty frequently, though not for the past three years which is kind of an improvement. i've had actual delusions and hallucinations (auditory and visual) which was what usually led to hospitalizations.
i DO take medication, but part of me getting better was adjusting what i took, but also finding a doctor who would spend more time actually talking to me rather than (like my old one) mechanistically going down a list of questions right out of a textbook, then sending me out with a refill on my Rx. i also got a therapist i can see more often.
on an interesting note - i got a hold of the notes that one psychiatrist (an older man) wrote about my while i was hospitalized. there was some box to check for different things and he kept checking 'strange clothing or appearance' - i wear lots of loud, bright colors as far as shirts go and i let my hair get pretty messy at times, but that's just me - it was a good illustration as to how someone can make something insignificant into something important just because of their own bias for what is 'normal.' (in fact, that time i had to get a few friends to come in and say i was acting 'normal for me' so they would let me out.)
though i take medication, i support people who want to experiment with reducing or eliminating it, especially since the side effects can be pretty harsh for some of them. it all depends on what works. a difficult thing i had to deal with was in spite of being hospitalized a few times when i was younger, my father was against me taking any medication. i really resented that he kind of acted as an intermediary between me and the doctor(s) but how parents deal with the mental health issues of their children is another topic likely.
some friends of mine have decided to NOT take medication - one has done well for a long time, the other just started not taking medication but i think it depends a lot of what works for the individual - doctors seem to 'try' medications in an almost random fashion, so trying 'no medication' seems no less of a valid thing to try.
You are spot on. We do not herald our right to choose basically because we have no idea that we even have a choice.
Perhaps people are highly skeptical and feel that they are warranted to judge you so quickly is because knowledge on the existence of alternative treatments is close to nil. I've been dealing with borderline personality disorder, eating disorders and bipolar ii for around 11 years now (I'm 24...), and never was it ever once mentioned to me that alternative options were available. It would have been nice to know since I've been placed on the wrong medications for years, and have suffered serious consequences because of doctors' incompetencies in this uncomfortably fledgling field of psychiatry. My experiences with this industry have been so poor that I'm tempted to side with the Scientologists...
You're lucky that you can opt out of traditional care. Having access to nutrition therapy, holistic counseling, biofeedback, and cognitive therapy is quite a privilege that many people (okay, me) can't afford and have virtually no access to. Most of us barely have access to rudimentary psychotherapy and psychiatry as it is.
Most of us are really left with no choice except to stay on our medications. To go off of them would be highly irresponsible. Heck, it's a death wish. Been there, done that.